Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Incorporation of Montreal Protocol Adjustment for a 1999 Interim Reduction in Class I, Group VI Controlled Substances

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-6304-7]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Incorporation of Montreal

Protocol Adjustment for a 1999 Interim Reduction in Class I, Group VI

Controlled Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is proposing a revision to the

accelerated phaseout regulations that govern the production, import,

export, transformation and destruction of substances that deplete the

ozone layer under the authority of Title VI of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (CAA or the Act). Today's proposed amendment

reflects changes in U.S. obligations under the Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) due to recent

adjustments by signatory countries to this international agreement.

Specifically, today's proposed amendment incorporates the Protocol's 25

percent interim reduction in the production and consumption of class I,

Group VI controlled substances (methyl bromide) for the 1999 control

period and subsequent control periods.

In taking today's action, EPA recognizes the expressed intent of

Congress in recent changes to the Clean Air Act that direct EPA to

conform the U.S. phasedown schedule to the Montreal Protocol's schedule

for developed nations, including required interim reductions and

specific exemptions. EPA intends to follow this proposed rule with

other actions to complete the process of conforming the U.S. methyl

bromide phaseout schedule and specific exemptions with obligations

under the Montreal Protocol and with the recent changes to the Clean

Air Act. Through subsequent actions to today's proposed amendment, EPA

plans to reflect, through notice and comment rulemaking, the additional

steps in the phaseout schedule for the production and consumption of

methyl bromide, as follows: beginning January 1, 2001, a 50 percent

reduction in baseline levels; beginning January 1, 2003, a 70 percent

reduction in baseline levels; beginning January 1, 2005, a complete

phaseout of the production and consumption with emergency and critical

use exemptions permitted under the Montreal Protocol. Even sooner, EPA

plans to publish a proposal that

[[Page 9291]]

will describe a process for exempting quarantine and preshipment

quantities of methyl bromide used in the U.S. from the reduction steps

in the phaseout schedule.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or

before March 29, 1999, unless a public hearing is requested. If a

public hearing takes place, it will be scheduled for March 12, 1999,

after which comments must be received on or before March 29, 1999. Any

party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact person listed

below by 5pm Eastern Standard Time on March 4, 1999. After that time,

interested parties may call EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection

Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 to inquire with regard to whether

a hearing will be held, as well as the time and place of such a

hearing.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this rulemaking should be submitted in duplicate

(two copies) to: Air Docket No. A-92-13, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Room M-1500, Washington, D.C., 20460.

Inquiries regarding a public hearing should be directed to the

Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-269-1996.

Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Docket No.

A-92-13. The Docket is located in room M-1500, First Floor, Waterside

Mall at the address above. The materials may be inspected from 8 a.m.

until 4 p.m. Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged by

EPA for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Land, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of

Atmospheric Programs, 6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20460,

202-564-9185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Proposed amendments to Sec. 82.7--Grant and Phased Reduction of

Baseline Production and Consumption Allowances for Class I

Controlled Substances

III. Next Steps to Conform the U.S. Methyl Bromide Phaseout Schedule

and Exemptions to the Montreal Protocol and Amended Clean Air Act

IV. Summary of Supporting Analysis

I. Background

The current regulatory requirements of the Stratospheric Ozone

Protection Program that limit production and consumption of ozone-

depleting substances were promulgated by the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or the Agency) in the Federal Register on May 10, 1995 (60

FR 24970) and on December 20, 1994 (59 FR 65478). The regulatory

program was originally published in the Federal Register on August 12,

1988 (53 FR 30566), in response to the 1987 signing of the Montreal

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

(Protocol).1 The U.S. was one of the original signatories to

the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the U.S. ratified the Protocol on April

4, 1988. Congress then enacted, and President Bush signed into law, the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA or the Act) that included Title

VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection. Today's action proposes

amendments to the existing EPA regulations published under Title VI of

the CAA governing the production and consumption of ozone-depleting

substances. Today's proposed amendments are designed to ensure the U.S.

meets its obligations under the Protocol and the CAA, including the

first interim reduction reflecting amendments to Title VI as created by

Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277). Section 764(a) of the

Omnibus Act requires EPA to promulgate rules to bring the schedule for

phaseout of methyl bromide into accordance with the Montreal Protocol

as in effect at the time of enactment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Several revisions to the original 1988 rule were issued on

the following dates: February 9, 1989 (54 FR 6376), April 3, 1989

(54 FR 13502), July 5, 1989 (54 FR 28062), July 12, 1989 (54 FR

29337), February 13, 1990 (55 FR 5005), June 15, 1990 (55 FR 24490)

and June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25812) July 30, 1992 (57 FR 33754), and

December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The requirements contained in the final rules published in the

Federal Register on May 10, 1995 and December 20, 1994 establish an

Allowance Program (the Program). The Program and its history are

described in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the

Federal Register on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56276). The control and

the phaseout of production and consumption of Class I ozone-depleting

substances as required under the Protocol and CAA are accomplished

through the Allowance Program. In this action, EPA is also recognizing

the expressed intent of Congress in recent changes to the Clean Air

Act, which direct EPA to conform the U.S. phasedown schedule to the

Montreal Protocol's schedule for developed nations, including required

interim reductions.

In developing the Allowance Program, EPA collected information on

the amounts of ozone-depleting substances produced, imported, exported,

transformed and destroyed within the United States for specific

baseline years. This information was used to establish the U.S.

production and consumption ceilings for these substances. The data were

also used to assign company-specific production and import rights to

companies that were in most cases producing or importing during the

specific year of data collection. These production or import rights are

called ``allowances.'' Due to the complete phaseout of many of the

ozone-depleting chemicals, the quantities of production allowances and

consumption allowances granted to companies for those chemicals were

gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Production allowances and

consumption allowances continue to exist for only one specific class I

controlled ozone-depleting substance--methyl bromide. All other

production or consumption of class I controlled substances is

prohibited under the Protocol and the CAA, but for a few narrow

exemptions.

In the context of the regulatory program, the use of the term

consumption may be misleading. Consumption does not mean the ``use'' of

a controlled substance, but rather is defined as production plus

imports minus exports of controlled substances (Article 1 of the

Protocol and Section 601 of the CAA). Unless they are subject to use

restrictions, Class I controlled substances can generally continue to

be ``used'' after their ``production and consumption'' phaseout dates.

The specific names and chemical formulas for the controlled ozone-

depleting substances in the Groups of class I controlled substances are

in Appendix A and Appendix F in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 82. The

specific names and chemical formulas for the class II controlled ozone-

depleting substances are in Appendix B and Appendix F in Subpart A.

Although the regulations phased out the production and consumption

of class I, Group II substances (halons) on January 1, 1994, and all

other class I controlled substances (except methyl bromide) on January

1, 1996, a very limited number of exemptions exist, consistent with

U.S. obligations under the Protocol. The regulations allow for the

manufacture of phased-out class I controlled substances, provided the

substances are either transformed, or destroyed. (40 CFR 82.4(b)) They

also allow limited manufacture if the substances are (1) exported to

countries

[[Page 9292]]

listed under Article 5 of the Protocol, (2) produced for essential uses

as authorized by the Protocol and the regulations, or (3) produced with

destruction or transformation credits. (40 CFR 82.4(b))

The regulations allow import of phased-out class I controlled

substances provided the substances are either transformed or destroyed.

(40 CFR 82.4(d)) Limited exceptions to the ban on the import of phased-

out class I controlled substances also exist if the substances are: (1)

previously used, (2) imported for essential uses as authorized by the

Protocol and the regulations, (3) imported with destruction or

transformation credits or (4) a transhipment or a heel. (40 CFR

82.4(d), 82.13(g)(2)).

EPA intends to follow this proposed rule with other actions to

complete the process of conforming the U.S. phaseout schedule for

methyl bromide with obligations under the Montreal Protocol and with

the recent changes to the Clean Air Act. Through subsequent actions to

today's proposed amendment, EPA plans to reflect, through notice and

comment rulemaking, the additional steps in the phaseout schedule for

the production and consumption of methyl bromide, as follows: beginning

January 1, 2001, a 50 percent reduction in baseline levels; beginning

January 1, 2003, a 70 percent reduction in baseline levels; beginning

January 1, 2005, a complete phaseout of production and consumption with

processes for special exemptions permitted under the Montreal Protocol.

In the coming months, EPA plans to publish a proposal that will define

the process for exempting quarantine and preshipment quantities of

methyl bromide used in the U.S. from the phaseout schedule. These

subsequent actions are described in more detail in Part III of today's

proposed rulemaking.

II. Proposed Amendments to Sec. 82.7--Grant and Phased Reduction of

Baseline Production and Consumption Allowances for Class I

Controlled Substances

EPA is proposing a 25 percent reduction in the 1991 baseline levels

of production allowances and consumption allowances for methyl bromide

for the 1999 and 2000 control periods. At the 1997 meeting of the

Montreal Protocol, the Parties agreed to adjust the phaseout schedule

of methyl bromide for industrialized countries.

Today's action is proposed to ensure that the U.S. meets its

obligations under the Protocol as well as to ensure compliance with

Title VI of the CAA, including the first interim reduction reflecting

Section 764 of the recent 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations Act. EPA plans to take final action on this

proposal as early as possible in 1999. Producers and importers of

methyl bromide should plan accordingly to ensure that the United States

meets its obligations under the Montreal Protocol.

The Parties to the Protocol established a freeze in the level of

methyl bromide production and consumption for developed countries at

the 1992 Meeting in Copenhagen. Each developed country's 1991

production and consumption of methyl bromide was used as the baseline

for establishing the freeze. EPA published a final rule in the Federal

Register on December 10, 1993 listing methyl bromide as a class I

controlled substance and freezing production and consumption at 1991

levels. (58 FR 65018, 65028-65044, 65074). In the rule published in the

Federal Register on December 30, 1993, EPA established baseline

production allowances and consumption allowances for methyl bromide for

specific companies. The companies receiving baseline production and

consumption allowances in accordance with their 1991 level of

production, imports and exports for class I, Group VI controlled

substances (methyl bromide) are listed at 40 CFR 82.5 and 82.6 (58 FR

69238). Section 82.7 of the rule published in the Federal Register on

May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24970) sets forth the percentage of baseline

allowances for methyl bromide (class I, Group VI controlled substances)

granted to companies in each control period (each calendar year).

Currently, the percentage of baseline methyl bromide allowances granted

for each control period until 2001 is 100 percent. In accordance with

the Protocol's adjustment to the methyl bromide phaseout schedule, EPA

is proposing to grant 75 percent of baseline production allowances and

75 percent of baseline consumption allowances to the companies listed

in Sections 82.5 and 82.6 for class I, Group VI substances beginning in

1999.

In preparing the December 30, 1993 final rule for the complete

phaseout of methyl bromide in 2001, EPA conducted a Cost Effectiveness

Analysis, dated September 30, 1993, under the title, ``Part 2, The Cost

and Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed Phaseout of Methyl Bromide.''

EPA conducted an additional analysis for today's proposed interim

reduction in methyl bromide production and consumption. The results of

the additional analysis indicate that, if the U.S. had to reduce methyl

bromide production and consumption from 100 percent to 75 percent of

the baseline in 1999, the estimated cost increase would be less than 2

percent of the original cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout. The

original (1993) annualized cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout,

adjusted to 1998 dollars, is $159 million. The incremental annualized

costs for today's proposed reduction beginning in 1999 from 100 percent

of the baseline to 75 percent would be approximately $3 million.

However, from 1994 through 1997, the actual consumption of methyl

bromide in the U.S. has been approximately 10 to 15 percent below the

1991 baseline as reported to EPA's Allowance Tracking System. The

United States must therefore reduce methyl bromide consumption in 1999

by only 10 to 15 percent in relation to the 1991 baseline to achieve

the Protocol's first interim reduction from 100 percent to 75 percent.

According to the additional analysis, the estimated cost increase of

implementing a 10 to 15 percent reduction in methyl bromide production

and consumption in 1999 would be less than 1 percent of the original

cost estimate conducted in 1993, or an annualized incremental cost of

less than $2 million. Because this new analysis is an addendum to the

1993 analysis and uses the same algorithms it permits easy comparisons

with the earlier cost estimates. In undertaking the steps discussed

below, EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

intends to conduct further analysis.

III. Next Steps to Conform the U.S. Methyl Bromide Phaseout

Schedule and Exemptions to those of the Montreal Protocol and the

Recently Amended Clean Air Act

Immediately following today's action, EPA will hold stakeholder

meetings to solicit feedback on subsequent rulemakings. EPA intends to

publish two proposals to conform the United States' methyl bromide

program to obligations under the Montreal Protocol and recent changes

to the Clean Air Act. First, EPA intends to propose a process that

would exempt quantities of methyl bromide used for quarantine and

preshipment in the U.S. from the phaseout schedule and make adjustments

to the existing baseline. Second, EPA intends to propose additional

phaseout steps for methyl bromide, and establish additional exemptions

in accordance with the Protocol, as follows:

--beginning January 1, 2001, a 50 percent reduction in baseline levels;

--beginning January 1, 2003, a 70 percent reduction in baseline levels;

[[Page 9293]]

--beginning January 1, 2005, a complete phaseout of the production and

consumption;

--establish a process for emergency use exemptions; and

--establish a process for critical use exemptions as permitted under

the Montreal Protocol.

The discussion below outlines EPA's plans for subsequent rulemaking

and provides a vision of the Agency's future actions to conform the

U.S. methyl bromide regulatory program with the Montreal Protocol and

recent changes to Title VI of the Clean Air Act. The plans described

below provide general information. EPA will request formal comments on

more detailed proposals in the very near future.

EPA intends to quickly publish a proposal to exempt all quantities

of methyl bromide used for quarantine and preshipment in the United

States. EPA anticipates proposing a flexible process that is responsive

to market demands for methyl bromide for quarantine and preshipment. In

preparing the notice of proposed rulemaking on quarantine and

preshipment, EPA will address the new Section 604(d)(5) of Title VI of

the CAA on Sanitation and Food Protection added by Section 764(b) of

the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Act (Public Law 105-277). In this same regulatory action, EPA intends

to correct the existing methyl bromide baseline of production

allowances and consumption allowances because they contain a fixed

quantity associated with quarantine and preshipment. When EPA included

methyl bromide in the list of class I controlled ozone depleting

substances in the final rule published in the Federal Register on

December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018), and established the baseline for

production and consumption allowances, the quantities of quarantine and

preshipment were included in the baseline.

The second step EPA intends to take in conforming the U.S. methyl

bromide program to obligations under the Montreal Protocol and recent

changes to the Clean Air Act would be a proposal to set the remaining

reduction steps and final phaseout, to establish the process for

emergency use exemptions and to create the process for critical use

exemptions. Each of these parts of a proposal would be designed to

ensure the U.S. meets its obligations under the Montreal Protocol

consistent with statutory requirements in the Clean Air Act. The

remaining phaseout steps for the production and consumption of methyl

bromide are a 50 percent reduction in baseline levels beginning January

1, 2001; a 70 percent reduction in baseline levels beginning January 1,

2003; and a complete phaseout of production and consumption beginning

January 1, 2005, with emergency use exemptions and critical use

exemptions as permitted under the Montreal Protocol. EPA, in

consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, intends to

conduct further analysis to support the proposal of these further

reduction steps, final phaseout, and exemptions.

IV. Summary of Supporting Analysis

A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.

104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal

governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA

generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that

may result in expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any

one year. If a written statement is required under section 202, section

205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least

costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why

this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative

is inconsistent with law.

Section 203 of the UMRA requires the Agency to establish a plan for

obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small

governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.

Section 204 of the UMRA requires the Agency to develop a process to

allow elected state, local, and tribal government officials to provide

input in the development of any proposal containing a significant

Federal intergovernmental mandate.

The provisions in today's proposal fulfill the obligations of the

United States under the international treaty, The Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as well as the recent

amendments to Title VI of the Clean Air Act. Analysis of today's

proposed rule estimates an incremental annualized cost of $1 to 3

million for the 25 percent reduction as compared to the 1993 original

analysis for establishing the 2001 phaseout. However, further analysis

shows that just the 25 percent reduction proposed in today's rule for

the two year period of 1999 and 2000 would have an estimated cost of

$71 million without other additional reduction steps and without a

complete phaseout of the production and consumption of methyl bromide.

Therefore, it is unlikely that today's rule will result in expenditures

of $100 million or more in any one year for State, local and tribal

governments, or for the private sector in the aggregate. Thus, today's

proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and

205 of the UMRA. EPA has also determined that this proposed rule

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments; therefore, EPA is not required to

develop a plan with regard to small governments under section 203.

Finally, because this proposal does not contain a significant

intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not required to develop a

process to obtain input from elected state, local, and tribal officials

under section 204.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions.

The Agency performed an initial screening analysis and determined

that this regulation does not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. EPA characterized the regulated

community by identifying the SIC codes of the companies affected by

this rule. The Agency determined that the members of the regulated

community affected by today's rule are not small businesses under SBA

definitions. Small governments and small not-for-profit organizations

are not subject to the provisions of today's rule. The provisions in

today's action regulate large, multinational corporations that either

produce, import, or export class I, group VI ozone-depleting

substances. Thus, today's rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

EPA concluded that this proposed rule would not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities, therefore, I hereby

certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

[[Page 9294]]

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the

Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant'' regulatory action

as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,

or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified

EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within

the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to

OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented in the public record.

Analysis of today's proposed rule estimates an incremental

annualized cost of $1 to 3 million for the 25 percent reduction as

compared to the 1993 original analysis for establishing the 2001

phaseout. However, further analysis shows that just the 25 percent

reduction proposed in today's rule for the two year period 1999 and

2000 would have an estimated cost of $71 million without additional

reduction steps and without a complete phaseout of the production and

consumption of methyl bromide.

D. Applicability of E.O. 13045--Children's Health Protection

Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies

to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''

as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health

or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or

safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and

reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory

actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to

influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to E.O.

13045 because it implements a Congressional directive to phase out

production and consumption of methyl bromide in accordance with the

schedule under the Montreal Protocol.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not add any information collection requirements or

increase burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

previously approved the information collection requirements contained

in the final rule promulgated on May 10, 1995, and assigned OMB control

number 2060-0170 (EPA ICR No. 1432.16).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and

verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's

regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local

or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide the Office of

Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive

Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian

Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies or matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. The rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments.

Accordingly, the

[[Page 9295]]

requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

H. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards

are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA

to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The

proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,

EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Ozone layer.

Dated: February 18, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

40 CFR part 82 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

Subpart A--Production and Consumption Controls

2. Section 82.7 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 82.7 Grant and phase reduction of baseline production and

consumption allowances for class I controlled substances.

For each control period specified in the following table, each

person is granted the specified percentage of the baseline production

and consumption allowances apportioned to him under Secs. 82.5 and 82.6

of this subpart.

[In precent]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Class I Class I

substances Class I Class I Class I Class I substances

Control period in groups I substances substances substances substances in group

and III in group II in group IV in group V in group VI VIII

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1994.............................. 25 0 50 50 100 100

1995.............................. 25 0 15 30 100 100

1996.............................. 0 0 0 0 100 0

1997.............................. 0 0 0 0 100 0

1998.............................. 0 0 0 0 100 0

1999.............................. 0 0 0 0 75 0

2000.............................. 0 0 0 0 75 0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-4578 Filed 2-24-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P